MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196210012 · doi:10.1080/02687038.2021.1959016

Effect of an intensive comprehensive aphasia program on language and communication in chronic aphasia

2021· article· en· W3196210012 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAphasiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalMcGill UniversityCentre for Research on Brain Language and Music
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsAphasiaPsychological interventionPsychologyWord listAudiologyPhysical therapyMedicineCognitive psychologyComputer sciencePsychiatryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intensity has been identified as an important determinant of treatment effectiveness in aphasia, especially in the chronic phase. Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Program (ICAP) is a popular treatment delivery model that includes an array of treatment approaches provided at a high level of intensity. Only a few studies have reported the effect of ICAPs on language and communication so far. The effect of intensity on different interventions provided as part of the program should also be studied to optimize the delivery schedule. The first aim of this study was to measure the effect of an ICAP for people with chronic aphasia using consensus outcome measures and other standard tests. The second aim was to test the effect of intensity on naming treatments provided during the ICAP. People with aphasia (n = 7) who had their strokes at least 6 months before the beginning of the study attended an ICAP that was provided for 4 hours a day, 3 days a week over 4 weeks (48 hours in total). On each treatment day, participants received 2 hours of individual therapy, 1 hour of technology-based therapy, and 1 hour of group therapy. Individual therapy included a naming treatment using two equivalent lists of words. One list was treated once a week for 4 weeks while the other was treated on four consecutive treatment days. Lists were controlled for word length, word frequency, number of words from a specific semantic category, and average naming accuracy at baseline. Both lists were treated using the same approach. As a group, participants had higher total scores on the Boston Naming Test (BNT) after attending the ICAP. The change on the Western Aphasia Battery – Revised Aphasia Quotient (WAB-R AQ) was not significant. No change was observed on measures of emotional well-being, quality of life, and functional communication. Individual comparisons using published benchmarks for significant change following aphasia treatments showed significant changes in all participants on the BNT, the WAB-R AQ, or both. Participants made significant naming gains for words treated once a week over four weeks and words treated on four consecutive treatment days. There was no difference between the two naming treatment schedules. All participants made measurable language gains following their participation in an ICAP. More studies are needed to understand the effect of intensity on components of ICAPs and to apply this knowledge to optimize treatments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it